Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

11.5 a.m.

Mr. Sandys: On a point of order. With regard to the business for today, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether, in view of the total condemnation of the Government by the electors, the Prime Minister has sought your leave to make a statement to the House about his intentions?

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to the point of order. The people are utterly sick and tired of the Government, with their broken pledges and utter incompetence, and they want to know when the country will have an opportunity of getting rid of this incubus.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Further to the point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The second submission was not a point of order. The first was an ingenious attempt at a point of order which has not been unknown on similar occasions before. Mr. Peart. Business Statement.

Mr. Sandys: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you reply to my question about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister has not asked me for permission to make a statement.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short Business statement.
The business for Tuesday next has been rearranged as follows:
Until seven o'clock, Supply: Allotted Day No. 21½,
Debate on Opposition Motion relating to the Withdrawal of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport.
Thereafter, the business will be as already announced:
Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report from the Select Committee on Agriculture, in Session 1966–67, and the relevant Departmental Observations.
Motions on Members' Travel.
Third Reading of the Water Resources Bill.
Prayer on the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations.

Sir C. Osborne: In view of the deep feeling concerning the withdrawal of Sir Frederick Crawford's passport, is it not possible to have more than half a day for debate, because many hon. Members would like to put their point of view and it is a fundamental issue of personal liberty? Could not the debate be extended to a whole day?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that this is the Opposition's first use of the revised Standing Order 18, which in paragraphs 3 and 4 allows up to four half Supply Days a year taken at no greater rate than one in two consecutive calendar months. The Opposition have chosen this subject and I trust that there will be a good debate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does not the Leader of the House realise that this is a matter which has aroused the deepest feeling in the country? If the Government have a case, do they not want a full day in which to try to deploy it? Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has relied only on Opposition time mean that he wants to run away from this issue?

Mr. Peart: There is no question of that. I thought that the time would provide an adequate debate, and that the Opposition leaders would be pleased to have it; that is why they have chosen it.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Leader of the House aware that this situation has been created by the Government? As the Opposition are giving a half day, will not the Government give another half day and make a whole day?

Mr. Peart: The hon. and learned Member should appreciate that the


Opposition have a Supply Day on Monday and could have taken the whole of that day had they so wished.

Sir Knox Cunningham: The Government are running away from it.

Mr. Peart: It is not a question of running away. The Opposition have, quite rightly, chosen a half day under the new procedure.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House take into account that if any extra time is to be provided on Tuesday, many of us feel that it should be devoted to discussing the several thousands of people in Rhodesia whose liberties have been taken away by the illegal régime and those who have been sent to their death in defiance of the rule of law in Rhodesia? We consider that if there is to be further debate, some of it should be devoted to the execution of sanctions against the illegal régime, which is responsible for the persistent breaches of the rule of law. Therefore, if there is to be extra time can my right hon. Friend ensure that these wider subjects will enter into the debate?

Mr. Peart: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I know that many of my hon. Friends feel as strongly as he does. That matter could well be discussed even in the half day which has been arranged. The present arrangement is the choice of the Opposition. As I have said, they could have chosen a whole day on Monday.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The question raised by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is, if anything, clearly an argument for making more time available. Beyond that, I do not wish to comment on what the hon. Member has said. Surely, however, the Leader of the House is in error in suggesting that it might be technically possible and reasonable for the Opposition to take a full day. We are taking advantage of the system under which half days can be specially arranged for such debates. That is why the half day has been chosen, in accordance with the wishes of the House. Would the Leader of the House give an undertaking that if there is, as there appears to be, a general desire that this should be a whole day's debate he will discuss through the usual channels

whether the Opposition could provide a half day and the Government the other half day?

Mr. Peart: I am always prepared to look at this and especially in view of the strong representations made to me by my hon. Friend who feels so deeply about freedom in Rhodesia. [An HON. MEMBER: "So do we."] I am not saying hon. Members opposite do not, though I suspect some want a debate for other reasons. I am merely suggesting that my hon. Friend sincerely believes in this point of view and I think the House should take note of it. Technically, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we could have had a debate on this subject instead of on tourism. Nevertheless, the Opposition have so chosen. However, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to consider this, as Leader of the House I will of course do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is not to say that a concession will be made, but, whenever any hon. Member or right hon. Member makes suggestions, from either side, I will take note of the points raised. However, the Opposition have chosen this procedure, and it is, therefore, their responsibility in that sense.

Sir R. Cary: Are there not precedents in the past whereby the Opposition have given a half day and the Government have given a half day thus making a full days' debate possible? I think the right hon. Gentleman will find there are precedents for that.

Mr. Peart: I am aware that there are those precedents, but hon. Members know how this was initiated, and it is not for me to question Mr. Speaker's Ruling in any way. Mr. Speaker made a decision; otherwise we would have had a debate, probably, yesterday, and it would have been held during approximately half a day. It would have interrupted business. However, the Opposition proposed this, and, as I have said, I will have consultations.

Mr. Sandys: May I support the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in pressing for a longer debate, and one which will be sufficiently wide to enable all points of view to be expressed? I hope, in particular, that those of us who feel that the Government's


latest action shows that they really have no intention of trying to reach agreement with Rhodesia, and that the time has, therefore, come to end sanctions altogether, will have an opportunity to express these views.

Mr. Peart: It would be very wrong for me, as Leader of the House, to get involved in arguments at this stage about Rhodesia. I am dealing with procedure and an alteration of business.

Mr. McNamara: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a little more consideration for the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), because one thing which is very certain is that the Opposition just have not learned who is responsible for the situation in Rhodesia and who caused the breakdown in the rule of law and the reason we should have strong and more effective sanctions?

Mr. Peart: It is not for me at this stage to get involved in an argument about that. I know my hon. Friend feels very strongly and sincerely about that, and it is a view I will take note of. As I have said, I will take note of the points which have been raised.

Sir C. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has already asked a business question, and we cannot have a debate.

Sir C. Osborne: I am not asking for a debate, Mr. Speaker. I was going to ask for your guidance. I appeal to you personally now. If, unhappily, the Leader of the House is unable to give us the extra half day, and I can see the difficulties, could you, from the Chair, make a special appeal to both sides of the House for 10-minute speeches on that half day so that as many hon. Members as possible can get in?

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member, who has raised a quite substantial point. Mr. Speaker is always interested when hon. Members propose that they should make brief speeches. Yesterday, in the debate on pensions, I was able to call a considerable number of Members because Members did make brief speeches. I do not think the debate suffered because the speeches were brief. I think there is a lot in what the hon. Member said.

Orders of the Day — THEATRES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Speaker: I have, as usual, posted up a list of the Amendments I have selected. I have selected the three Amendments for one debate.

Clause 17.

INTERPRETATION.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 11, to leave out lines 35 to 39.
The Bill as presented to the House on Second Reading did not contain the present subsection (2)(b) of Clause 17. That paragraph provides that
a person taking part as a performer in a performance of a play directed by another person shall be treated as a person who directed the performance if without reasonable excuse he performs otherwise than in accordance with that person's direction".
That paragraph was introduced by my right hon. Friend in Committee. I expressed some doubt about it at that time. Since then those doubts have been confirmed, and I want to suggest that the Under-Secretary should consider the possibility of dropping that paragraph altogether, as suggested in this Amendment.
It seems to me that if an actor did offend as suggested, in other words, if in a manner which was not envisaged by the director in presenting the play, the actor uttered words or made gestures which were held to be obscene and the director was held to be responsible for that obscenity, and proceedings were taken as provided for in this Measure, that actor might not, I think, work again very quickly. I believe, therefore, that one of the unforeseen consequences of the Bill will be that in future, once it comes into force, actors will be extremely careful to make sure that they do not introduce business or words which are not provided for in the original direction. I think it very unlikely that even if this paragraph (b) were not in the Bill an actor in future would perform actions


which would have the result of making a producer liable; because, obviously, it could have an effect upon the possibility of his future employment.
For this reason it seems to me, on balance, that the best thing to do about the paragraph would be to take it out, because it is unnecessary. If, however, my hon. Friend is not persuaded of this view—I hope he will be, but if he is not so persuaded—I should like him to consider the other Amendments to the Clause, Amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 39, after 'direction', insert:
'provided that if the director or his representative shall raise no objection to a variation of performance carried out for three performances or more the director shall be regarded as having approved and accepted responsibility for such variation and the performer shall not thereafter be regarded as the director of the performance'.
and No. 3, in line 39, after 'direction' insert:
Provided that if the director or his representative shall raise no objection to a variation of performance carried out for three performances or more the director shall be regarded as having approved and accepted responsibility for such variation and the performer shall not thereafter be regarded as the director of the performance and provided further that directional responsibility of the performer shall be limited to the variation of performance for which he is alleged to be responsible.
Before I speak about those, I should like to make one other point on Clause 17 as it is. It seems to me that the Clause might have the effect that a director might seek to shelve responsibility on to an actor. One can conceive the possibility that, in the event of proceedings being taken under the Bill, proceedings resting, possibly, upon the manner in which an actor performed, the director might seek to say, "Of course, I did not really intend him to do it that way and the responsibility for it is his for acting in the way he did, rather than mine." It seems to me, therefore, that the Clause has these two fundamental objections. One is that it is unnecessary because of the economic relationship between actor and director. Secondly, it might be an indication to a director to attempt to push off on to an actor the blame, if blame there were, for an obscene action and to say that, perhaps by the twist of a wrist, he converted a blessing into an obscene gesture, or something of that

sort, and that the responsibility was not that of the director.
It would be better if my right hon. Friend decided on balance not to have this Clause in the Bill, but if he is not convinced by that argument I suggest that the Clause should be amended. The Amendments I have suggested, if the Clause is to be retained, have a twofold purpose. If this matter were to go to a Division, which I hope will not be necessary, I hope that it might be your decision, Mr. Speaker, that Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would be appropriate for that purpose rather than Amendment No. 1.
The first proposal is
that if the director or his representative shall raise no objection to a variation of performance carried out for three performances or more the director shall be regarded as having approved and accepted responsibility for such variation and the performer shall not thereafter be regarded as the director of the performance.
The object of that will be clear. If an actor carries out a performance in a certain manner and if the director or his representative, seeing the variation carried out on three occasions or more, fails to say, "No, this is not in the business", he assumes responsibility for that and the actor is no longer responsible for the variation. This is necessary because otherwise there might be a variation of the performance put into the play and carried on over a long period and after several months the director might say, "This is not mine; this is his."
If an actor carries out a performance in a certain manner there surely comes a time when the performance is approved by the director. After the first presentation of the play, the director is seldom at the performance, but he has a staff. He has a stage manager and assistant stage manager whose duty it is to see that the performance is carried out in the way he wished it to be presented. Therefore, if the stage manager does not correct or change a performance in that time it may be assumed that the performance is approved and accepted.
After my first proposal to change the Clause, three separate lawyers told me, without being prompted, that there was another and even more evil consequence in the subsection which had escaped my attention. It is that, as the Clause is at


present worded, if an actor carried out a performance, or a gesture, or spoke words of the type suggested, and if subsequently or before that time under the direction of the original director something obscene had been carried out, the actor would acquire responsibility for the play as a whole. He acquires responsibility, not only for what he has done, but for everything which the director has done.
In the Clause as worded, if there were actual obscenity in the play by the intention of the director, without any limitation whatever, the Clause provides:
a person taking part as a performer in a performance of a play directed by another person shall be treated as a person who directed the performance"—
That is without any qualification—
if without reasonable excuse he performs otherwise than in accordance with that person's direction".
He becomes the director for all purposes without qualification upon a single action and he is liable with reference to any offences carried out by the director.
My right hon. Friend might perhaps consider withdrawing the Clause, but if he does not so wish I hope that he will feel able to accept Amendment No. 3.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: My approach to this problem is very much the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). The responsibility should not normally be on the actor if the play in which he is performing is an obscene one. That responsibility must rest fully on the presenter and/or the director of the play, but it was put to me that there is one situation in which the actor ought to bear responsibility. This was the argument put to me by the Society of West End Managers. I think it was a sound one. For that reason, in Committee, I moved an Amendment to which my hon. Friend now objects.
The situation which the Society envisages is the possibility of a play produced in London which may be a borderline one—say, a bawdy farce—but after a time, when it is performed by the same or by by a touring company in the country an actor, perhaps the lead, finds that he can get more laughs and

be more popular if he inserts words which were not in the original script, or makes gestures which together render that play obscene although it might not have been so before.
I emphasise that the only charge that can be made against a play and on which a prosecution must be based is that it is obscene as a whole. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that a few words inserted by an actor or a gesture by one actor would make the play as a whole obscene. It must also be remembered that no action can be taken without the consent of the Attorney-General. I think the Society was quite right in saying that if that happened and, contrary to the directions given to him by the director and perhaps without the knowledge of the director, an actor made a play which otherwise would be inoffensive, obscene, the responsibility cannot rest on the director, but it must rest on someone if a prosecution is to take place.
In those circumstances, and those alone, it must rest on the actor. The circumstances in which this sort of thing could arise are unlikely to occur often, if at all, but they might. If a play which is a borderline case is presented there is, it seems to me, a special responsibility on the actor to see that he does not turn it into one on which a prosecution could be successfully launched. Therefore, it is right to retain this provision, although I hope that it will never be operated. Probably it rarely will be.
11.30 a.m.
My hon. Friend suggests that there should be Amendments to achieve three things. I have considered these proposals carefully. I have been given legal advice by the Government's advisers that the Amendments are unnecessary and, indeed, may be dangerous. My hon. Friend's first proposal is that, if an actor ad-libs or makes gestures which may turn a play as a whole into an obscene one, and if he does it for three days or more, with the knowledge of the director or of his representative, who when a company is on tour is usually the company manager, the actor shall be absolved from responsibility. My hon. Friend wants to insert a provision to that effect.
I am advised that the answer is—it seems to be the common-sense one—that this is not necessary and that it would be a perfectly good defence for the actor that he committed the alleged offence with the knowledge of the producer or his representative. If he proved that, he would not be found guilty. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary to make such an Amendment.
My hon. Friend suggests, secondly, that words should be inserted which would absolve the actor from all responsibility in these circumstances. By doing so the Bill would single out one range of circumstances which would absolve the actor. It would give him one line of defence—one excuse, inserted into the Bill and, therefore, carrying the force of law.
I am advised that that would be a dangerous thing to do, because, if a Bill singles out one line of defence against a possible prosecution, it can be held, and often is held by the courts, that that is the only line of defence. It would make it impossible for the actor to plead other excuses and take other lines of defence, even if they were available to him. Therefore, words to this effect would be dangerous from the actor's point of view. They might deprive him of what might otherwise be a successful defence. My advice, which I impart to the House, is that for the actor's sake it would be unwise to insert the suggested words.
The last point, which arises in the new Amendment my hon. Friend has tabled, is that the actor should be absolved from responsibility, even if he has himself used words or gestures which might be lewd and which are not in the script, but which would not in themselves cause offence, when other things are said or done by other actors which, together with the actor's own actions, make the play an obscene one.
I am sure that that is not necessary. An actor could not be charged as a director with putting on or directing an obscene play if those parts which are alleged to be obscene were done, not according to his direction or on his order or request, but as a result of the action of somebody else. It is inconceivable that any action should be taken against such an actor for allowing something or ordering something for which

he had no responsibility whatsoever. Not only would there be no case, but it is inconceivable that the Attorney-General would allow a prosecution of that sort to be taken.
My hon. Friend's fears about the difficulties in which actors might find themselves are, I am convinced, not justified. I hope that I have been able to allay them. However, I realise that this is an important matter and that many people in the acting profession are worried about the position they may find themselves in as a result of the passage of the Bill. Some of them fear that they may be brought to court for an offence for which they were not responsible.
I believe that the Amendments are not necessary and that the Clause as it stands is all right. However, in view of my hon. Friend's plea, I shall be very happy to look into the points which he has raised and into the present wording of the Clause. If I find that the advice which has been given to me is wrong, and that my hon. Friend is right, which I do not think will happen, I will certainly consider asking those who are responsible for the Bill in the Lords to insert an Amendment to remedy that defect. I hope that with this undertaking, my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my right hon. Friend, if he were so advised, be prepared to advise his friends in another place that on reflection the Clause is unnecessary?

Mr. Strauss: I am perfectly happy to look at the whole thing. My hon. Friend will realise that I am in partnership with the Home Office, because we are promoting the Bill together. The view of the Home Office will have to be considered. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be happy to look at the whole matter. If it appears that my views are wrong—I am pretty sure that I am right, because I have studied the matter very carefully—I will ask those who are responsible in the Lords to reconsider the matter and, if necessary, to put forward a correcting Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I have been very impressed, as I trust that the House has been, by the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend


the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). The House will appreciate the generosity—indeed, the magnanimity—with which he has undertaken to look at the matter again. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has given that undertaking, not because he is in any doubt about the fundamental necessity for subsection (2)(b), but from an abundance of caution.
There are, no doubt, technical defects in Amendment No. 1. It refers to a variation but does not state what the variation is a variation from or by whom it is occasioned. It would provide that, where a performance has been carried out on three occasions without objection from the director or the presenter, there shall be no proceedings thereafter. Therefore, presumably, even after being absolved from proceedings for any performances after the third, under the Amendment it would still be possible for proceedings to be brought for the first, second or third performances. The Amendment seeks to impose a wholly unnecessary gloss on subsection (2)(b).
It could be dangerous, as my right hon. Friend said, in that it would tend to delimit from a wide range of circumstances cases in which the actor would be absolved from liability. It could be argued also, that, where the director had passively acquiesced in the introduction into the basic script of some fresh material, that certainly would not come within the prohibition in paragraph (b).
I need say no more about Amendment No. 2. Inasmuch as it would delete the whole paragraph, it goes wholly contrary to the unanimous acceptance of the paragraph by the Standing Committee. However, I concede that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) gave notice at the time that he would wish to think about the matter again.
Amendment No. 3 is wholly contrary to a fundamental principle in the Bill. It is wrong to regard the ad-libbing of the actor in vacuo, as it were, as separate and apart from the whole question of liability. The basis of liability under Clauses 2, 5 and 6 is in each case the performance taken as a whole. Therefore, it is not as though the introduc-

tion of foreign material by the actor were something which would stand apart from that. It is the very act which causes the transformation of a play not otherwise obscene, contrary to public order or good standards in race relations; it is the words or gestures of the actor himself which bring about the transformation. In such circumstances, it would be wrong to absolve the actor from the liability which he would bring upon the director or presenter. He has brought about the situation, and it would be inequitable by any standards that he should be free from blame and liability in such a case.
There is the converse situation, too. If the play is a borderline play, it is possible for the actor to transform it fairly easily. If it is a play which does not come within a mile of the relevant prohibition, the actor himself has the greatest possible protection. He can ad-lib substantially, bringing in material which by itself is bawdy or obscene but because that material is, as it were, diluted by the general character of the play, he avoids liability.
The general principle underlying this paragraph is that, where an actor, like any employee or anyone in a subservient capacity, acts in a way wholly contrary to the general or specific directions of the person employing or directing him, where he goes off on a frolic of his own, he cannot claim the indemnity which would otherwise be available to him as an employee.
The House will note that the effect of the Bill is to absolve actors from liability generally. That liability exists at present under the Theatres Act, so that a substantial benefit is here being conferred upon the actor.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: I was interested to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department are partners on this Bill. I had not fully realised that that was the situation.
These Amendments have been fully explained twice over now. Speaking for myself, I agree with what was said by the right hon. Gentleman, but I was glad to hear his assurance that he would look at the wording of Clause 17(2)(b). It


seems to me that the wording there is not altogether felicitous to deal with the situation envisaged. If an actor were by a single gesture to do something which the director had not authorised and thereby render himself liable, it is going a little far to cause him to be regarded as directing the performance as a whole. It seems to me, therefore, that the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has some substance in it, although, because no proceedings may be brought save with the leave of the Attorney-General, difficulty would arise only in rather remote circumstances. I feel that the paragraph would be better if reworded.
After the full explanation of the interesting points raised by the Amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the advice of his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I have the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need leave. It is his Amendment.

Mr. Jenkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall in a few moments ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, having regard to the full explanations given and, in particular, the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I was rather more impressed by what he said than by the observations of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I must remind my hon. Friend that this Bill is that of my right hon. Friend and myself. I am one of the sponsors, and it has nothing to do with my hon. Friend at the Home Office. He is here merely for the purpose of giving the Government's opinion. We are glad to have that opinion, it is most valuable to us and we should not know what to do without it, but the Bill is not his. He is giving the Government's approval to the Bill, and without that approval we could hardly hope to have it passed, but the Bill is that of my right hon. Friend and myself, not his Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue that further. We are considering an Amendment.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: On that point, Mr. Speaker, may I say that my hon. Friend is giving us a shattering glimpse of the obvious. I claim no property in the Bill, but my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), my predecessor in office, made clear on Second Reading—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Some of this might be germane on Third Reading. I doubt it. We are on an Amendment now.

Mr. Jenkins: I entirely accept your guidance, Mr. Speaker. You are, as always, entirely right.
A valuable point which has emerged from the discussion is that it seems possible that, when a question arises in the future and the Attorney-General is, perhaps, balancing cases in his hand and considering what he might do in certain circumstances, he may wish to turn up this debate and discover what was said by the sponsor of the Bill.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend has undertaken to have the Clause looked at again, because I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) about it. Even if the intention be right, it is infelicitously worded at present. This opportunity is one of the benefits we have from the existence of the other place.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

11.49 a.m.

Mr. Strauss: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The principles of the Bill were fully discussed on Second Reading and there is no need for me to repeat the arguments put forward then. However, I should like to say a few words before the House passes the Bill. First, I should like to interpret the remarks I made just now which my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) picked up. When I said that I was in partnership with the Government on the Bill I of course meant that it has been brought before the House by myself and other sponsors, of whom my hon. Friend


is one, but that throughout it has had the warm support of the Government, and that the exceedingly difficult problem of drafting it and implementing the Joint Select Committee's recommendations has been done by the Government—the Home Office in particular—and their draftsmen, and a very good job they made of it. It was only in that sense, that it is a co-operative effort, that I meant that I was in partnership with them.
It has been remarkable and gratifying to me and all the other sponsors of the Bill that we have progressed to the present stage so quickly and smoothly. I expected a long and bitter battle over the Bill and that we should have strenuous opposition from those elements in the House that are always fearful of libertarian advances and resist them. That has not happened. I think that the reason is that the Report of the Joint Select Committee which considered the matter was unanimous and that that Committee contained Members of both Houses many of whom are very distinguished and eminently respectable. I believe that the Report carried a great deal of weight with the House. I believe that another reason is that the Report was exceedingly well argued and presented an irresistible case.
Moreover, the Bill was welcomed by almost the entire Press and I think that it is generally realised that the principles it contains reflect the strong dislike of all British people for the concept of censorship of freedom of expression, particularly when it is arbitrarily done by one man against whom there is no appeal. The sponsors find the almost unanimous view with which the Bill has been received in the House most satisfactory and we hope that it augurs well for a speedy passage in another place and that it will there receive a similar sympathetic approval.
It is remarkable, too, that in a matter of this controversial nature I have received so few letters of protest from individuals or organisations. I have received some, mostly from those connected with the theatre, and I have tried as far as possible to meet their objections and worries. On the whole it has been possible to allay their fears, and only in one respect—that referred to by my hon. Friend in regard to the actor and

his responsibility—has it been desirable in my view to amend the Bill.
There was very little controversy in Committee except on one subject, the representation on the stage of heads of foreign countries and members of the Royal Family. We had an interesting debate on that and at the end of the day the Committee came to the conclusion that there should be no restriction there, I think broadly for the same reason that the members of the Select Committee came to that conclusion, which was that it was unnecessary, invidious and wrong that there should be any greater restrictions on the liberty of expression in the theatre than there was in books or in the Press. The Committee turned down that proposal, and I am sure that it did so correctly.
The Select Committee pointed out that this change from censorship by the Lord Chamberlain, which has existed for over 230 years, to a system of freedom subject to the laws of the land and prosecution on grounds of obscenity, or perhaps individual action by people who believe that they have been libelled, might well bring about a temporary state of difficulty and unsettlement in the theatre. The Committee realised that, and I realise it, and I warn the House that it is possible that after the Bill is passed there may be a period of some difficulty. Plays may be put on which are objectionable to some sections of the community on political, religious or moral grounds. Voices may be raised, perhaps strong voices, demanding that there should be prosecution, and that the Attorney-General should either permit a prosecution or launch one himself. He may be the subject of considerable public controversy when he refuses to launch a prosecution which some people think desirable.
We cannot ignore these possible troubles, and if they develop it must not be said that this House, when passing the Bill, was unaware of the danger. But I am convinced that if we go through such a period it will be temporary, and that after a short time the Attorney-General will have no greater difficulty in carrying out his duties under this Bill, when it is enacted, than he has under the Obscene Publications Act. We have the experience from the other countries, practically all the democratic countries in the world,


which have no pre-censorship whatsoever and have no difficulties. There is every reason to believe that the same situation will develop in this country after a short time.
The British theatre has a deservedly high reputation, which has greatly increased in recent years, largely because we are fortunate in having in this country outstanding dramatists, actors and producers. That process has been helped by the generous support given by the Government to the theatre through the Arts Council. It is my belief and, I think, that of all of the sponsors of the Bill and all our leading dramatists, that the Bill will open up to the British theatre further possibilities for advance. It will not only do that but it will remove from our Statute Book an embargo on the freedom of expression which is contrary to all the traditions of our country.

11.58 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I shall take up only a few minutes on this occasion as I was in the happy position of being on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), whom we congratulate on the Bill, was in a position to make a speech because I, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) and some of my other hon. Friends last night put down the Motion without which neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I would have been able to speak under the new procedure.
I was not quite certain what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that some hon. Members are against libertarian advances and added that the Bill opens up further possibilities of advance. That did not seem to me to come out in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said "libertarian", but I might be tempted to use the phrase "licentious advances", because that is what I think a number of people are frightened about. I do not think that public opinion throughout the country is quite as sophisticated as some hon. Members are. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had received few protests, but this may be because there has been very little publicity about the Bill, and until it is passed and becomes effective we shall not be able to see what may come out of it.
I speak entirely as a layman on all this. I have no close knowledge of the theatre, as have the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). It would be a pity if the Bill went to another place without our taking the opportunity of Third Reading to underline certain points which arose in Committee and which I believe are still unanswered.
I can understand that today right hon. and hon. Members opposite are very preoccupied about yesterday's events, but it is encouraging that the House can meet on an occasion like this and talk about something which I believe is of importance to the individual. I should not like the Bill to leave the House without our saluting the Lord Chamberlain who, over a period of 230 years has carried out this very great service to the country and the theatre. Not only because of this form of pre-censorship but from other points of view, a play that has been passed by the Lord Chamberlain goes out throughout not only this country but a large part of the English-speaking world with his imprimatur and is therefore accepted as being in good taste. Our interesting discussion earlier this morning shows how difficult it is to legislate for good taste. Indeed, it is very often impossible. But we are legislating here not for the 90 per cent. of people who accept good taste but for the small remainder.
I am sure that the House would agree that this time in history is a good one at which to dissociate members of Her Majesty's Household from personal responsibility for this task. But I do not believe in change for the sake of change. There will be no pre-censorship now. There will be a strange difference between the theatre and the B.B.C. on the one side and the I.T.A. and the film industry on the other. The British Board of Film Censors gives certificates to films in accordance with certain criteria, and in recent years this has not led to any complaints. I agree that for the reasons that the hon. Member for Putney gave this morning the theatre is different from the film in this respect. The film is fixed for all time, but the individual actor can vary a play.
In Committee we raised the question of what would happen if the Sovereigns or members of the Royal Family—but


particularly Sovereigns—had something said about them in a play. What action could they take in the courts? It is all very well to say that we should apply the law of the land, but it is not clear how the Sovereign could take action in the courts of law. I should be grateful if this could be cleared up by the Under-Secretary or by someone else in due course in another place. I do not think that the situation is satisfactory as it is left at the moment.
Finally, it is not clear to me, as a layman, who takes action under Clause 6. The Clause says that it shall be an offence if the performance, taken as a whole, is likely to occasion a breach of the peace. Who decides this? I am not a Catholic, but I can understand a Catholic objecting to a play about the Pope. Such a person might create a breach of the peace about it and be told to pipe down because it was not an offence. Would such a person then have to punch the manager of the theatre on the nose or throw something at the actors on the stage so that he might find himself in court for creating a breach of the peace? His point would then have been made in the courts. I should be glad if this point could be looked at before the Bill goes to another place.
I welcome the principle of getting rid of the Lord Chamberlain, but my mind will remain open about the advantages of the changes that are being made until I have seen the Bill working for two or three years.

12.5 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I join in the congratulations offered to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on successfully carrying his Bill through to this stage. I think that his chairmanship of the Select Committee was perhaps a necessary preliminary to the easy passage that this Bill has had. His long experience in the House has enabled him to know precisely what one can and cannot do. I think perhaps that on the occasion when I had a Bill before the House I should not have failed with it if I had had my right hon. Friend's long experience in the House.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) is right in saying that the disappearance of the Lord Chamberlain would create a

new difference between the theatre and other forms of performance entertainment. On the contrary, the theatre has been singled out for special treatment inasmuch as at present the Lord Chamberlain is operating at the script stage, intervening before the production is ever seen. With other forms of production such censorship arrangements as there are operate after the event and not before. It seems to me that the Bill will bring the theatre nearer to the other forms of public entertainment and not create a separate position for it.
On behalf of some of my fellow sponsors—one or two could not be present this morning and asked me to convey their apologies—I congratulate the chief presenter of the Bill, and express the hope that the Bill will have a continued easy passage through Parliament. In view of what I said earlier about the intervention of the Under-Secretary, I pay a personal tribute to the help which the Government Front Bench and the Under-Secretary in particular have given the Bill.

12.7 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I am in some agreement with the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I am in agreement with him in my surprise at the lack of opposition to the Bill. I also find myself in agreement with him in my desire not to repeat arguments which I have already made.
However, I wish to say at this stage that I do not find the Bill more to my liking than I found it at earlier stages. In spite of the impressive Blue Book and the rest, I do not think that a case has been made out for treating the theatre differently from all the other peforming arts. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) that there is an overwhelming case for dissociating Her Majesty's Household from any relationship with the theatre. I am sure that no one would wish to continue the present system in this respect, including the present Lord Chamberlain.
What has not been made out—I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's phrase about there being an irresistible argument here—is a case for treating the theatre differently from, for instance, the cinema. I pressed the right hon. Gentleman in Committee, and eventually he told


me that the difference was one of cost and that there was a distinction of quality. I could not help reflecting—and I did so all the more when he talked about the partnership that he had with the Home Office in this matter—how strange it was that a Labour Member of Parliament was advocating a Bill which gave a greater freedom to those who could pay more than to those who could pay less. That is a strange distinction. Carried to its logical conclusion, the result would not be the Bill but a form of censorship which would put the theatre in a very different position from the fleapit round the corner.
What we are deciding in the Bill is that the theatre alone among the performing arts should be treated as literature, whereas the cinema, for example, should be treated differently. I do not believe that this is right. Whatever the system should be for the performing arts, it should be across the board, and I do not see the weight of this distinction.
The system on the literary side at the moment permits a flood of pornographic literature. The taste for pornography at the moment is very strong. I have a nasty feeling that the theatre may wish to compete. But the much more serious point is from the point of view of those producing serious works of literature. The right hon. Gentleman talked of those fearful of liberatarian advance. I do not believe that I am such a person but I do believe that a system of the sort he is advocating will be uncertain. He himself has admitted this, at least in the short term. He says that there will be a difficult period.
I feel that this difficult period will continue and that, if it ceases, it will cease only because theatre managements have become timid as a result of the sort of case coming forward. That is the substance of my case. I am not arguing for a strictly controlled theatre but I do say that the best way of ensuring a reasonable degree of freedom is some way in which a management can find some security against prosecution thereafter. The right hon. Gentleman is advocating a new form of post-censorship to replace the present system. I believe that this will be more uncertain and therefore that in the long run it will be to the ill and not to the good of the theatre.
The theatre in this country is exceedingly vigorous. I do not believe that there is a country in the world with a theatre more vigorous. That is why above all else I feel so doubtful about changing the system so radically. The right hon. Gentleman says that no other country uses such a system but if one looks at the small print of his report one finds that, in many Western European countries, there is provision for banning plays or something of the sort. It is not just the fact that other countries with which we may feel most in common have a simple system of the sort we are advocating.
I have a feeling still that the long-term result of the Bill may be to the disadvantage of the British theatre. That is why I would not like the Bill to go through without at least a caveat from me.

12.04 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: The speech of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) at least illustrates that serious arguments are involved and that no one should be deceived by the amicable nature of this debate. We have had a series of profound arguments on all the questions that the hon. Gentleman has posed. We had them in Committee and earlier in the Select Committee.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). I am extremely doubtful whether we would have reached this stage of getting the Bill so near the Statute Book had it not been for my right hon. Friend's brilliant chairmanship and leadership throughout this affair. The theatre owes him a great debt for achieving what so many have attempted and failed to achieve over the last half-century. It is chiefly his skill which has ensured that the Bill has gone through so successfully.
We should also thank the Home Office, in particular, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as Home Secretary, gave encouragement to those who wished this to happen and was, indeed, responsible for the setting up of the Select Committee. I dare say that he also had some say in the choice of membership, which no doubt assisted the


process. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is one of the authors of the Measure.
I want also to mention, as I have done previously, one other person—former Member of this House and a friend of many of us, Mr Benn Levy, who has campaigned over the years for this change. All of us in favour of the Bill have been greatly fortified and assisted by the arguments he has presented to us. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall will be the first to agree that, fundamentally, it has been the campaigning of Benn Levy and the League of Dramatists which has achieved this result.

Mr. Strauss: Mr. Strauss indicated assent.

Mr. Foot: That brings me to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chelsea that we are putting the theatre in a kind of privileged position. What we are, in fact, doing is to remove from the playwright the obstacles and impediments which have prevailed upon their literature. No one should be under any misapprehension as to the hardship to which playwrights have been subjected over the past 250 years during which this system has been in operation.
I do not wish to stir up controversy at this stage, but I cannot join in the tributes paid to the Lord Chamberlains over these years. Like all other censors, they have made themselves utterly ridiculous. That is in the nature of their office. All censors make themselves ridiculous eventually and the Lord Chamberlains have been no exception, and that includes the recent Lord Chamberlains. They have been making themselves ridiculous because their function was quite impossible for any official, including an official of the Crown, to discharge.
What the Lord Chamberlains have done in trying to execute this impossible function is to impose serious hardship on many of the most eminent playwrights of our country. I do not need to go through the list again, but on many occasions some of our leading playwrights have been denied a right to put on the plays they wished because of the pre-censorship system or have had their livelihood interfered with on this account. That is the evil we have set out to do

away with. We have paid attention to the special claims of those who write for the theatre.
You yourself, Mr. Speaker, have engaged in this activity and no doubt you will be relieved that your play will not be subjected to pre-censorship. I hope that we shall have the pleasure of seeing it at a London theatre. Perhaps it will be the first play advertised as "The play the censors could not touch". I hope that you will have a long run with it—even longer than your run in this House.
I shall not follow the hon. Member for Chelsea in trying to draw the ineffable distinction between liberty and licence. Wiser men than we have tried and failed over the years. They have merely made fools of themselves in trying to draw such a distinction. I think that we are making the institution of Lord Chamberlain slightly less ridiculous than it was, although it still retains some of its other ridiculous attributes. In making him slightly less ridiculous, we are at the same time affording greater freedom to a section of the community who have perhaps contributed more to the glory of our country than any other section has done.

12.9 p.m.

Mr. Buck: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on the work he has done in the Joint Committee and in piloting this Bill through the House. It is an interesting Measure. It has been fully discussed on Second Reading and in Committee quite apart from the Joint Committee.
I want to say a word of praise, which was not forthcoming from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), for the Lord Chamberlains throughout the last 250 years. I was a little saddened to hear what he had to say about them. We have certainly the finest theatre in the world. This desirable, happy and vigorous state of affairs has come about in spite of the suggested evils of the censorship system imposed by the Lord Chamberlain. Surely it can hardly have been such a harsh and rigorous system if such a happy state of affairs has come about for the theatre.
That officer of the Crown has made great contributions to the preservation of
good manners, decorum and public peace


within the realms of the theatre, to quote the words of the 1843 Act, under which he has operated for so many years.
I had some doubts about the movement away from pre-censorship, but I was persuaded largely by the evidence of the Lord Chamberlain himself to the Committee as to the inappropriateness of his rôle today. It is interesting to see the flexibility which ancient officers of the Crown can adopt in giving evidence, because it was the officer himself who said that perhaps the time had come for his post to go. That shows a flexibility of attitude which is praiseworthy. That convinced me. It seems to me right that we should make this move.
This move will lay much greater responsibility even than in the past on the good sense of playwrights, directors and producers. I hope very much that we shall not have a spate of near indecencies or near-pornography. I hope that producers will not try and cash in on this. I hope that if there are such tendencies, the Attorney-General will act, and do so quickly and boldly, to see that that does not come about. I have confidence in the Attorney-General that he will act in that way.
Although I do not see that this will enable Britain's theatre to make a further great step forward, as seemed to be suggested by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, there is a good prospect that we shall continue to have in our theatres which are the finest in the world, good manners, decorum and nothing which will go against the public peace. That is my fervent hope and I trust that it will be fulfilled in the coming months. I hope, too, that we do not see any of the trouble which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall suggested might happen.
Speaking personally, therefore, I give, the Bill a limited welcome and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Vauxhall.

12.22 p.m.

Sir Dingle Foot: Five years ago, I had the privilege of introducing under the Ten Minute Rule a Bill to abolish complsory censorship by the Lord Chamberlain. That Bill was rejected by a very large majority. I also had the privilege of giving evidence before the Select Committee. Therefore, I rise

to offer the warmest congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). It is a considerable Parliamentary achievement for which not only we in the House of Commons, but generations of playwrights yet to come, as well as theatre audiences, will have reason to be grateful.
We have had the ridiculous system of censorship ever since the days of Sir Robert Walpole. It was imposed entirely for political reasons to oppress criticism and satire directed against his Government. It is, therefore, entirely appropriate that it should be a Labour Government which removes this system of censorship which, as has been said, is unique in the whole world. This is a considerable Parliamentary occasion. We might, perhaps, end our proceedings today when the House rises with the lines of G. K. Chesterton:
And a voice valedictory.… Who is for victory?
Who is for liberty? Who goes home?

12.24 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I join right hon. and hon. Members who have tendered their congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) on the Bill and I evince the hope that it will have a smooth and speedy passage through its further stages. I trust that with one or two distinguished exceptions hon. Members will accept that the Bill will be a solution to a problem which has long vexed those who are concerned with the liberty of expression.
I certainly have no intention of answering—that is not my role—certain arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) lest my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) should accuse me of too fervent an espousal of the Bill. I stress, however, that the effects of the Bill do not mean theatrical licence but merely that the theatre has been put on the same basis as the publication of the printed word.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham has, however, raised one or two technical matters and it might be appropriate if I briefly refer to them. He has mentioned films. As the House will be aware, there is no Government censorship of films. Statutory control rests with local cinema licensing authorities and they usually, but not always, follow the classifications


issued by the British Board of Film Censors. That is a non-statutory body which was set up by the trade in 1912.
The hon. Member asked what would be the position of the Sovereign in law. As was mentioned in Standing Committee, it is probable that in relation to the law of defamation the Sovereign stands in the same position as every other subject, but, obviously, in practice, difficulties would occur.
In so far as the protection of the Sovereign in law is concerned, I refer to page 171 of the Joint Committee's Report and the advice there tendered by the then Solicitor-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot). It is possible that in an extreme case, the law of sedition could operate. Sedition is classically defined as follows at page 218 of the 12th edition of Vol. 1 of "Russell on Crime":
Generally speaking, any words, acts or writing in respect of the public acts or private conduct of the Queen which tend to vilify or disgrace the Queen, or to lessen her in the esteem of her subjcts, or any denial of her right to the crown, even in common and unadvised discourse, may be punished as sedition".
The last point raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham was the question of who prosecutes under Clause 6 of the Bill. The prosecution would be in the ordinary way, in the ordinary pattern of criminal prosecution.
The hon. Member raised the further question of how it is decided whether a

breach of the peace is involved. The operative words of the Clause are
did so with intent to provoke a breach of the peace".
The fact that no breach of the peace might have occurred is not in itself conclusive. Indeed, conversely, the fact that a breach of the peace did occur on the part of the audience again is not conclusive with regard to a person's guilt or innocence. Under Clause 17, the test at all times is the intent at the time of the director, the presenter or the actor in the play. It is, it would seem, an objective test.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Why is the word "or" and not "and" used between paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that on Third Reading we cannot amend a Clause of the Bill.

Mr. Morgan: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. That is a matter which I can take up again with the hon. Member elsewhere.
It only remains for me to remind the House that the position of the Government is not one of neutrality, as might have been supposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. As was explained on Second Reading and in Committee, it is one of a declaration of support for the Bill and the affording of all facilities in assisting in its drafting. Therefore, the Government wish it well.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

HEARING AIDS BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]

Clause 1.

HEARING AIDS COUNCIL.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'aids' and insert 'Aid'.
It would also be convenient if we considered at the same time Amendments No. 38 and No. 41.
I apologise for the long list of purely drafting Amendments with which we are now faced, but I assure hon. Members that this Amendment, together with all the others, in no way alters the context of the Bill that they have already read. This is a drafting Amendment. Like so many other things, I have come to understand the satire of the words of Lewis Carroll which he put into the mouth of Humpty Dumpty:
Words mean what I intend them to mean.
When it comes to drafting a Bill, as an ordinary back bencher, it is difficult to get the word; to mean precisely what one wants them to mean.
Although this Amendment alters only one letter it alters, to some extent, the approach of the Bill. We are now talking about helping people rather than about the instrument of a hearing aid. By making this into a Hearing Aid Council, making it an aid to people suffering from a hearing disability rather than talking about the technical and highly technological instrument which people wear, this has changed the approach of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 2, in line 9, leave out 'and promulgating';

No. 3 in line 11, leave out from 'aids' to 'together' in line 12;

No. 4, in line 15, after 'study', insert 'the';

No. 5, in line 15, after 'facilities', insert available';

No. 6, in line 16, leave out 'to members of the public'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, page 1, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 2 and insert—
(3) The Council shall draw up standards of competence for dispensers of hearing aids and codes of trade practice for adoption by such dispensers and by suppliers and shall from time to time review those standards and codes may vary them as they consider appropriate.
(4) The Council shall submit to the Board of Trade, for their written approval, any standard or code drawn up under this section or any variation to any such standard or code which the Board may have previously approved; and the Board in approving any standard, code or variation may make their approval conditional upon its being modified in such manner as they may require:
Provided that the Board shall notify the Council of any modification which they propose to require as a condition of their approval and consider the observations of the Council thereon;
(5) The Council shall publish in such a manner as they consider appropriate but with such modifications, if any as the Board of Trade may have required as a condition of their approval, any code or standard drawn up under this section and approved by the Board of Trade and any variation to any such standard or code which has been so approved.
Although this seems a long Amendment I can assure hon. Members that it is purely a drafting Amendment, rearranging the wording in such a way as to make it legally more acceptable and more readily interpreted should that be required. It would be correct to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Amendment, like all the others, has the support of all sides of the Committee. I should like to pay a tribute to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who is Father of the House, and has done so much in the preliminary stages of this Bill, giving time and thought, indeed his full support and help. I would also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) who has consistently backed my endeavours. Throughout the initial stages of this Amendment, and all others the two parties opposite have been more than helpful and I should like to record my appreciation of that.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
This is a little different from the others, in that at the time the Bill was being


drafted, the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill was going through the House. That Bill has now completed its stages, and this subsection is no longer necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 9, in line 13, after 'constitution', insert 'and powers.'—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.

REGISTERS OF PERSONS SELLING HEARING AIDS.

Amendments made: No. 10 in page 2, line 15, leave out 'The Council' and insert The registrar appointed by the Council in accordance with the provisions of the Schedule to this Act'.

No. 11, in line 18, leave out from 'registrar' to 'shall' in line 19.

No. 12, in line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
(3) The register shall be kept at the offices of the Council and shall be made available for public inspection at all reasonable times without charge;

No. 13, in line 30, leave out 'registered' and insert
'on first being registered and thereafter annually'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 30, at end add:
(5) For the purposes of this section, the following persons should be qualified for registration as dispensers of hearing aids, namely, any individual, other than a disqualified person, who—

(a) has been engaged in selling hearing aids to members of the public for not less than six months of the period of two years immediately preceding the commencement of this Act; or
(b) satisfies the standards of competence for the time being published by the Council pursuant to section 1 of this Act.


(6) For the purposes of this section a person shall be qualified for registration as a supplier of hearing aids if he carries on or proposes to carry on business as a supplier of hearing aids unless—

(a) he is a disqualified person or carrying on business in partnership with a disqualified person;
(b) being a company registered under the Companies Act 1948 it has among its directors one or more disqualified persons.



(7) Where an application for registration under this section is refused the applicant may appeal to the Disciplinary Committee established under section 6 of this Act and that the Committee shall have power to direct that the applicant be registered and may, in the case of an application by a company for registration as a supplier of hearing aids, direct that subsection (6)(b) of this section shall not apply.
(8) In this section disqualified person' means a person whose name has been directed under section 7 of this Act to be removed from either of the registers maintained under this section and in respect of which no directions for restoration have been given under section 8.
This seems a long Amendment, but it is really an alteration which puts the Bill into a better shape.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.

PERSONS QUALIFIED FOR REGISTRATION, AND PERSONS UNDERGOING FULLTIME TRAINING.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Pavitt: I have put down a new Clause, and I therefore ask the Committee to reject Clause 3.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 4.

RULES.

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 3, leave out lines 24 to 27.

No. 17, in line 37, at end insert:
Provided that before making any rule under this section which varies the amount of any fee payable the Council shall—

(i) consult with organisations representative of dispensers and suppliers of hearing aids; and
(ii) obtain the consent of the Board of Trade to the proposed variation.

No. 18, in line 37, at end insert:
(e) the restoration to the register of the name of a person which has been erased or removed under the provisions of this Act.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF DISCIPLINARY CASES.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 3, line 38, after 'committee', insert 'from among its members'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE.

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 4, line 9, after 'committee', insert 'from among its members'.

No. 21, in line 13, leave out '3(5) and' and insert 2(7) or any'.

No. 22, in line 22, leave out from 'Committee' to end of line 23 and insert:
(4) These rules shall not come into force until approved by the Lord Chancellor.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.

ERASURE FROM THE REGISTERS FOR CRIME, MISCONDUCT, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 23, in page 4, line 32, leave out the 'dispensation' and insert 'connection with the dispensing';

No. 24, in page 5, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert—
(b) the Disciplinary Committee is satisfied that a person whose name has been erased from one or both of the registers maintained under section 2 of this Act (and has not yet been restored) is a director of or taking part in the management of such a body corporate;

No. 25, in page 5, line 9, at end add—
(4) The Disciplinary Committee may if they think fit direct that the name of any person entered in either of the registers maintained under section 2(1) of this Act be erased from that register if they are satisfied that he is carrying or business as a dispenser or supplier of hearing aids in partnership with a person whose name has been erased from one of those registers (and has not yet been restored.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.

RESTORATION TO THE REGISTERS.

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 5, line 11, leave out 'under the provisions of this Act' and insert
'under section 7 of this Act or removed from one of those registers pursuant to rules made under section 4(d) of this Act'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.

PROCEDURE OF DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE.

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 5, line 39, after 'Committee', insert 'in England and Wales'.

No. 28, in page 6, line 34, after 'solicitor', insert 'or';

No. 29, in line 35, leave out 'or'.

No. 30, in page 7, line 8, leave out from 'register' to 'the' in line 9;

No. 31, in line 8, 'after register', insert 'or appeals against the refusal of an application for registration';

No. 32, in line 12, at end insert 'and as respects such appeals'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.

EXPENSES, RECEIPTS AND ACCOUNTS OF THE COUNCIL.

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 8, leave out line 31.

No. 34, in line 36, after 'Kingdom', insert 'and';

No. 35, in line 38, at end add 'but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners thereof is qualified to be so appointed'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.

RULES.

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 8, line 39, leave out 'Rules made under' and insert

'The power to make or approve rules conferred on the Lord Chancellor by'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.

INTERPRETATION.

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 9, line 5, leave out from 'is' to end of line 6 and insert
'intended for the use of a person with impaired hearing for the purpose of alleviating deafness'.
It might interest the Committee to know the reason for this Amendment. It is rather difficult to define precisely what a hearing aid is, and we had to be careful that we did not find ourselves legislating for people with portable transistor radios, which also amplify sound, while we needed to cover the kind of appliance that some people who are hard of hearing employ, which enables that person, with such a device, to hear the television in comfort at the same time as other people in the room are able to hear it at a comfortable level of sound. Multitone has such a device, which fits on an armchair and would come within the provisions of this Measure. It was therefore necessary to alter the words in order to make this quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.

SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT.

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 9, line 11, leave out 'Aids' and insert 'Aid Council'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.

OFFENCES BY UNREGISTERED PERSONS.

(1) It shall be unlawful at any time more than six months after the commencement of this Act for—

(a) any person other than—

(i) a person registered under this Act as a dispenser of hearing aids; or
(ii) a person whose name has been notified to the registrar of the Council and who is undergoing full-time training with a view to being registered as a dispenser of hearing aids and acting under the supervision of a registered dispenser;

to conduct or seek to conduct negotiations with any other person with a view to selling that person a hearing aid for his own use or for the use of a relative or friend;

(b) any person not for the time being registered under this Act as a supplier of hearing aids to employ any person other than—

(i) a person registered under this Act as a dispenser of hearing aids; or
(ii) a person whose name has been notified to the registrar of the Council and who is undergoing full-time training with a view to being so registered,

to conduct negotiations on his behalf with persons with a view to selling them hearing aids for their own use or for the use of their relatives or friends.

(2) A contravention of subsection (1) of this section shall be an offence and shall be punishable upon summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £100.

(3) In this section references to employment include employment as an agent but do not include employment other than for reward or in the anticipation of a reward.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is to cover offences by unregistered persons. It is necessary that there should be protection. The Bill provides for extremely high standards of conduct by the people registered as dispensers and suppliers of hearing aids. It is, therefore, necessary that unauthorised and unregistered persons shall not be able to lower the standards at the expense of those who are doing an extremely good job for people who are hard of hearing.
This purpose was originally contained in the Clause which has been omitted, and it does not alter in any case the text which the House has already had a good opportunity of considering.

Mr. A. P. Costain: May I ask for an explanation of the words:
who is undergoing full-time training"?
Is it the, first day of training or the last day of training?

Mr. Pavitt: The problem we had to consider was a difficult one. I should like to pay tribute to the officials of the Board of Trade who have been most helpful in getting over the difficulties.
The problem is that, when only a registered dispenser is legally permitted to sell, what happens when it is necessary to train a new dispenser? How does he get his training? The same kind of situation arises when a junior doctor is undergoing training under the responsibility of a consultant.
The purpose of the words to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention is to provide that the registered dispenser who is doing the training shall be responsible for anything that goes wrong. The person entering the industry may eventually become extremely able and well-qualified, and this provision will give him the opportunity of learning his subject under the guidance and under the complete responsibility of a person registered under the Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule.

CONSTITUTION AND POWERS OF THE COUNCIL.

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to move Amendment No. 39, page 10, line 5, leave out 'hearing aids industry' and insert
'dispensers and suppliers of hearing aids and drawn from persons eligible under section 2 of this Act'.
This is a drafting Amendment. We have reached a situation where we need to make some slight changes in the Schedule to the Act, and this is perhaps the most important part. The Schedule provides a new deal for deaf people. It may cover as many as 1 million of our fellow citizens who suffer from this disability.
It is essential to have a completely independent council, not a trade association, but one which would have the

interests of the people at heart. I again pay tribute to the way in which the industry has co-operated. The Schedule gives powers to an independent council for which the industry provides the money—the Government provide no money. The Amendment provides that we shall have the benefit of the advice and skill of persons with a key knowledge of the industry, who are not representing and are not nominated by the industry, and who will, therefore, be best able to serve people who have a hearing disability in addition to consumers and those who have the welfare of the deaf at heart.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 40, in page 10, line 10, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
2.—(1) A member of the Council shall hold office for such period, not exceeding four years, as the Board of Trade may specify at the time of his appointment.
(2) In determining the periods of office of members of the Council the Board of Trade shall seek to secure—

(a) that one third of the members of the Council cease to hold office by the effluxtion of time in every year after the year 1970; and
(b) that so far as is consistent with the consideration mentioned in head (a) above, all the members of the Council are appointed to hold office for similar periods.

(3) Nothing in subparagraphs (1) or (2) of this paragraph shall preclude—

(a) a member from resigning his office at any time by giving written notice to the registrar of the Council; or
(b) the Board of Trade from appointing any person as a member of the Council for a second or subsequent term.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Title.

Amendments made: No. 41, in line 1, leave out 'Aids' and insert 'Aid'.

No. 42, line 2, leave out 'manufacture or'.—[Mr. Pavitt.]

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CLEAN AIR BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair.]

Clause 1.

PROHIBITION OF DARK SMOKE FROM INDUSTRIAL OR TRADE PREMISES.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 26, at end insert—
Provided that this section shall not apply to any emission of dark smoke arising from—
(a) any plant or equipment used for the manufacture or laying of road materials or road surface dressing or for the heating and planing of road surfaces; and
(b) the burning in the open of

(i) wood, rubbish and other residues on any building or civil engineering construction site, where no other practical means of disposal exist; or
(ii) residues contaminated by explosives.


When the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) introduced the Bill on Second Reading he assured the House that he would not ask hon. Members to take it or leave it and that he would be willing to consider reasonable Amendments. He will appreciate that this is not a wrecking Amendment but a reasoned one. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends and I have the same desire for clean air as he has and that we are anxious to make the Bill more practical.
The Amendment is designed to give exemption on a purely temporary basis. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and will not claim that this can be done by regulations, as has been suggested. We should make laws which are easily understood and which do not need to be adjusted by regulations.
In our endeavour to make exactly clear what will happen when the Bill is passed, we are particularly concerned about the question of road works. Perhaps I should declare my interest in that I am a building contractor. It is because of that interest that I realise the implications of the Bill, and these have been causing some concern to the contracting industry.
The Amendment particularly concerns the use of tarmacadam burners on roads. This is a system used for taking off the

top layer of tarmacadam before relaying, and two methods can be adopted. The first is to hack away the top layer by the use of compressors, which is a time-consuming and expensive operation. The second is to burn off the top surface by an operation known in the trade as planing. When I originally tabled the Amendment the Table Office thought that I meant "planning". The planing process is normally used and hon. Members who came to the House this morning by way of Birdcage Walk will have seen the work taking place.
To illustrate the advantages of the planing method; if a contractor was relaying Regent Street he could, by planing, carry out the burning process in a maximum of three-and-a-half days. If, on the other hand, that was not allowable, it would take four weeks to do the job by the other method. And instead of the operation costing about 15s. a yard, it would cost £3, with the additional sum having to be borne by the local authority and carried on the rates.
It is essential that planing may be done and that contractors are aware of this fact when tendering. If regulations had to be introduced, contractors would, when tendering, have to work on the assumption, assuming the worst, that he would not be allowed to burn off. As I have explained, planing is a normal operation which does not add anything in any real sense to foul the air and is of a temporary nature.
The second part of the Amendment is similar to the first and is also a temporary expedient. When demolition work takes place a large amount of rubbish is left on the site. A great deal of it is often infected by bugs and possibly infectious diseases. Hon. Members will have noticed the demolition work going on over the river at St. Thomas's Hospital. It would be ridiculous if every scrap of rubbish had to be carted away by lorry. To where would it be carted? In the process of moving it there would always be the chance of disease being spread as infested objects fell from the lorry. If this rubbish must be moved, it would have to be burnt or placed in a pit. This would be ridiculous. Some people have suggested that it should be dumped in the sea, but that would make matters even worse, because much of it would float and our beaches would be spoilt.
I trust that the hon. Member for Buckingham accepts that this is a practical proposal which would allow the contracting industry to know precisely what is expected of it under the Bill. I am not asking for contractors' permanent structures to be exempted. Contractors must abide by their responsibilities under the Bill in that respect. A tarmacadam plant which is a permanent installation would in no way be affected by the Amendment. That type of plant would be covered in precisely the same way as everything else coming within the Bill.
An even stronger argument can be applied to the part of the Amendment which would exempt "residues contaminated by explosives". The hon. Member for Buckingham will know from his war experience that explosives burnt in the open can do little or no damage—that is, as long as one knows how to deal with them. On the other hand, if they must be carted away there is more likelihood of an explosion occurring, with the possibility of danger to life. Thus, while the first two parts of the Amendment are necessary, the third part is essential for the safety of life.
The Bill has been waiting a considerable time to come forward and it is a pity that we are not able to discuss it in Committee upstairs. It seems ludicrous that the Finance Bill should be debated upstairs while a Bill of this nature, which could have been discussed in Committee in great detail upstairs, is having to be taken on the Floor of the House. I would be out of order in developing this argument, so I will only add the Government are to blame for this state of affairs.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I entirely accept the assurance of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) that the Amendment is not of a wrecking nature. I must, however, with regret, resist it. My objection to it is simply that it is completely unnecessary, because it seeks to remove from the ambit of the Clause road works and the burning of certain specified substances.
I am legally advised that there is no doubt whatever that these items are at present not subject to the operation of the Clause, since roads are not industrial or trade premises. As for specified substances—wood and rubbish on building sites, and so on—the Clause, and par-

ticularly subsection (3) empowers the Minister to exempt by regulations any prescribed matter. The question of what substances need to be exempted will fall to be considered later and I am sure that the Minister will be open to all reasonable suggestions. There probably will be several, but to try to specify two or three substances now on their own in the body of the Bill before we have properly surveyed the scene and given the matter the comprehensive consideration it needs would be unsystematic and poor workmanship.
Hon. Members need be in no doubt that there is no intention to stretch the Clause wider than it should reasonably be applied or not to exempt anything that should be exempted. But let us take things in their proper order, do first things first, and not swipe round at one or two things that happened to occur to us and then find later that we have a great deal more to do to finish the job. I hope that, with this explanation, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Costain: I am in some doubt about subsection (1) (2). Will the hon. Gentleman explain the reference to
… the emission of dark smoke from a chimney …"?
I am not a lawyer, any more than the hon. Gentleman, and we may need the assistance of our legal colleagues on this matter. As I read it, the Minister has power to exempt the emission of dark smoke from a chimney. But what I have in mind does not come from a chimney. I am referring to what really are bonfires and I am therefore wondering if, when the hon. Gentleman referred to the powers of the Minister, these fires would be covered. Why mention the word "chimney"? I see that the Parliamentary Secretary himself has gone to take legal advice.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell: This is a matter for legal interpretation. The legal advice which I have obtained makes it clear beyond peradventure, and I hope that in those conditions the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I am advised quite specifically that the wording has a wider application than is suggested by


the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). The power to control it is very wide. Much the best way in which to be flexible in the control of this problem is by regulation rather than by provision in the Bill.

Mr. Costain: In view of the assurance given categorically by the hon. Gentleman, and supported by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.

EMISSION OF GRIT, DUST AND FUMES FROM FURNACES.

Mr. Maxwell: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 2, line 3, leave out from 'the' to 'from' and insert:
'rates of emission of grit and dust'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this we are to take the following Amendments: Nos. 53, 4, 36, 37, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, new Clause 1, and Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 32.

Mr. Maxwell: We are here considering a total of 20 Amendments and a new Clause all concerned with the same matter, namely, the application of the Bill to the emission of fumes. They fall into two separate sets, those suggested by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), and those which I have suggested. They have a certain amount in common. My reason for opposing the Amendments of hon. Members opposite is that theirs are clumsy and a mere job of amputation and that I am doing what is required, but better.
It has been agreed with industrial interests that Clauses 2 and 3 should not for the time being apply generally to the emission of fumes. This is because technological progress in fume arrestment is not yet so advanced as to enable several kinds of industrialists to be able to arrest fumes as efficiently as they can arrest grit and dust. However, the time will soon come when they will be able to do so. In the iron

and steel industry means of fume arrestment are now well advanced.
The proper way in which to tackle this situation is not simply to go through the Bill with a razor and cut out all references to fumes. We must do a better thought-out job than that. The right course is to stop Clauses 2 and 3 from applying to fumes for the moment, but to give the Minister power to apply them to fumes by regulation in due course. He will consult the interested bodies in the usual way before proceeding to make regulations.
These regulations, as will be seen from new Clause No. 1, may make different provisions for different cases, that is, apply the Clauses to fumes from one industry and not to the fumes from another which is not ready, and they will be subject to an affirmative Resolution. That should be sufficient to allay any misgivings.
It is not necessary to remove the application of Clause 4 to fumes. This is the Clause which deals with the measurement of emission. If the emission of grit and dust from a chimney is to be measured, the emission of fumes might as well be measured at the same time, and I am advised that one can hardly refrain from measuring the fumes. The Confederation of British Industry has no objection to the reference to fumes in Clause 4.
I therefore prefer my group of Amendments and I accordingly invite the House to accept Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 37, 7, 12, 22, 27 and new Clause 1 and Amendment No. 31 while resisting Amendments Nos. 53, 4, 6, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29 and 32.
A further consideration arises on Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 which are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 which we shall consider later and which deal with rates of emission under Clause 5. For the moment, I will say only that we must use the word "rate" in Clause 5, but, to be consistent in our terminology throughout the Bill, we must alter the word "quantities" in Clause 2 to "rates" to bring the wording into line. "Rate" is quantity emitted in a given time and its use in Clause 2 is more accurate and an improvement.

Mr. Costain: The Committee should have an assurance that the Chairman of


the Kitchen Committee is not introducing Amendments to keep fumes out of the scope of his own Bill just to save his own kitchens, as those of us who walk along the corridors from time to time are inclined to think.
Until he started his one-upmanship and said that his Amendments were better than mine, there were no party differences on this subject, but he is being a little cheeky when he makes that claim, because for several weeks he copied our Amendments. I presume that the Ministry, or the Whips, told him that one never takes an Opposition Amendment as it stands, because the Opposition might then claim something, and so he has altered the wording.
As he has claimed that his Amendments are much better, we are entitled to press him to explain why he introduces the words, "or dust is". We thought that our Amendment covered the point much better. It says, "grit and dust" and, originally, so did the hon. Gentleman's Amendments, but now he has altered them to, "or dust is". What is the legal benefit of such a change? The legal advice which I have taken is that the earlier version was better. Whether it should be "and" or "or" is always a legal question and I should like to know precisely why the hon. Gentleman claims that the alteration is better.

Mr. Maxwell: This is merely a matter of legal interpretation. My legal advice is considered to be of the highest repute and qualification. Various interested bodies have been consulted and they think that this interpretation is right. That is not to say that the hon. Gentleman will not find another lawyer to interpret it differently. We sometimes make laws so that lawyers can keep busy.

Mr. Costain: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman's second lawyer is better than his first. I suspect that they are the same. I prefer to stick to my advice and to my explanation that he did not want to accept our Amendment and that he altered it for alteration's sake. We are used to that when a Private Member's Bill is supported by a Ministry.
I am still not satisfied about Amendment No. 21, but I do not know whether we are entitled to discuss Clause 5.

The Deputy Chairman: If the Amendment is related to Clause 5 the hon. Member may refer to that Clause. The Amendment is being discussed irrespective of the Clause it applies to.

Mr. Costain: Thank you very much, Mr. Irving. I wanted to make clear that I must refer to Clause 5, but I was not certain that that would be in order.
Clause 5 includes "fumes" and Amendment No. 21 is to exclude "fumes" from the Clause. As the basis of the hon. Member's argument is that he wants to exclude "fumes"—though not because of the kitchen fumes—and I accept his explanation that one cannot define what is a "fume" either under present legal definitions or even perhaps technically, I wonder why he has left "fumes" in Clause 5. I shall be glad to give way at once if he can answer.

Mr. Maxwell: I can only tell the Committee that I considered this with our legal advisers and that it is necessary. As the hon. Member knows, we have consulted all interested parties, in particular the C.B.I., whose approach to these matters is extremely responsible, and I should like to acknowledge that. However, as the hon. Member well knows, it also represents industry in this instance. As the C.B.I. has found this satisfactory and acceptable, I hope that, in the circumstances, he will, too.

Mr. James Allason: The local authority is told under Clause 5 that it has got to consider the effects of smoke, grit, dust, gases, with all of which they have experience, and will have under Clause 3, but Clause 5 also says it must consider fumes. "Fumes" suddenly appears in Clause 4. Perhaps there is no great harm about that because the provisions there are permissive. One can ask the local authority to measure the fumes, but what criteria are the local authority to have in assessing them and determining the correct height of the building?
The hon. Member has already admitted that local authorities' knowledge about fumes is very sketchy indeed. Will the hon. Member's proposal not merely delay local authorities intolerably if they have to assess something which they cannot assess in determining the height of a


building? I would urge upon him that Amendment No. 21 is necessary.

Mr. MacColl: To follow up the first point made by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), I thought that it was inconsiderate of him at this time of the day to draw attention to the luscious fumes awaiting us if we can get through the Bill with reasonable speed. We all hope we shall be able to do that.
It is not correct to say that we have been bullying—even if one can bully him—my hon. Friend to accept Amendments. We are interested in the Bill because we care desperately for smoke control and we want the cause of clean air to be advanced. Therefore, we are very anxious indeed to see that the machinery is made flexible.
Clause 4, as the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) pointed out, is about the measurement of emissions and it is not mandatory. It is dealing, really, with the technique of measurement. From the technical point of view, our technical advisers and the alkali inspectorate who, I suppose, are the country's greatest experts in this business, think it quite reasonable to ask people who will measure grit and dust also to measure fumes while they are about it. It is a simple, useful facility to be able to do it when they are looking at a chimney.
Clause 5 empowers local authorities, when they are considering the question of the height of a chimney, to consider its effect on fumes. It empowers them to do this. It is an enabling provision and has not led to criticism from the people we have consulted about it. Our attitude towards it is the simple consideration of what is most convenient for everybody. We think my hon. Friend's proposals are likely to provide the easiest way of regulating this.
As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, there are difficulties connected with fumes. We want to be able to have the machinery flexible so that we can adapt it as science of the nature of fumes and knowledge of techniques of control of fumes develop. I think my hon. Friend has hit upon the best way of doing this. There is no great point of principle involved between any of us, I

think. It is merely a question of what is best for everyone.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 36, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'dust or fumes are' and insert 'or dust is'.

No. 37, in line 8, leave out 'in quantities' and insert 'at a rate'.

No. 7, in line 20, leave out 'dust or fumes' and insert or dust'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.

REQUIREMENT TO FIT ARRESTMENT PLANT TO NEW FURNACES.

1.15 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: The next Amendment is No. 8, and with it we can discuss the new Clause 2, "Exemptions from requirement to fit arrestment plant".

Mr. Maxwell: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 30, leave out 'this section' and insert:
'section (Exemptions from requirement to fit arrestment plant)'.
What I wanted to do here is to provide a right of appeal to the Minister. Clause 3(4) provides that the local authority may, where it sees fit, exempt an individual furnace and the requirement on the owner of the furnace to have a grit and dust arrester.
I now think that it would be better to provide that the furnace owner may apply for exemption, and that if the local authority does not grant him one he may, if he wishes, appeal to the Minister. To this end the Amendment proposes reference to the new Clause, subsection (1) of which simply reincorporates the provisions of Clause 3(3). That is merely drafting and construction.

Mr. Costain: I am rather surprised by this Amendment, because it seems to me to be rather against the use of coal as a fuel. I had expected that hon. Members who represent coal constituencies would have been here today to support my opposition to the Bill, but they are obviously licking their wounds received from other occasions.
I feel that the Amendment, which, really, is extending the provisions of the principal Act, makes them over-rigid. It seems to me that if it is accepted it will make it easier for oil companies to sell their fuel because they will not be under the necessity to install arrester plants. I think that, if the Amendment is accepted here, then when the Bill goes to another place a noble Lord whose name is not unknown in the coal industry may spot this point, and then we may find that the Bill will come back to us with Lords Amendments, because I think that there is today more enthusiasm for the use of coal than is evident from the attendance in the Committee today.
I do not see the necessity for the introduction of these extra provisions. I do not think that the hon. Member has made his case at all clear. Perhaps the Minister, who is acting as the hon. Member's long stop, may like to give the Committee some assurance that the Bill is not being designed to discourage the use of solid fuel. This Government have committed some follies, but I cannot believe they will commit the folly of introducing, by means of a Private Member's Bill, legislation which will make it more expensive and less convenient for industry to use coal. I will gladly give way to the Minister if he has any explanation to make.

Mr. MacColl: I give a clear assurance that that is not the object of the Bill. The object is to deal with clean air, which we all want. It is desirable, in view of the changing techniques of fuel and the utility and effectiveness of fuel and the kind of damage which may be caused by smoke, to have an appeals machinery so that the Minister can keep an even standard over the country.

Mr. Costain: I expected a little more explanation than that. A little bird told me—when I said that to my granddaughter the other day, she said, "Who told the little bird?"—that the Minister has consulted industry and given some assurance that this point will be met by sending out a memorandum. I expected that the reply would be that this could be covered, not by regulation but by a memorandum. May we have an assurance from the Minister that the memorandum will be sent at the same time as the enacting of this Measure?

Mr. Maxwell: I am sure that the hon. Member's fears will prove unfounded. A right of appeal was asked for by the Confederation of British Industry to safeguard the industry from local authority severity.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Costain: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 33, leave out '100' and insert '250'.

The Deputy Chairman: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendments Nos. 10, 16 and 17.

Mr. Costain: This Amendment, again, is a follow-on from a previous one. Those who have studied the Committee stage of the principal Act will realise that at that time we were talking about boilers of 10 tons an hour capacity. Now the pendulum has swung completely and, instead of 10 tons an hour, we have come to 100 lb. an hour. Many industrial users take the view that we have gone too far.
This Amendment is quite moderate. It would exempt certain small furnaces. In particular, I am concerned about greenhouse furnaces. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) made this point on Second Reading. He is sorry that other engagements prevent his being present to support me. We have the horticulturist in mind. He is having trouble in selling his products against foreign competition. Whatever view we take of going into the Common Market, all agree that if we do go in the person who will have most trouble will be the greenhouse owner. I hope that I may have the assurance of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), backed by his long-stop, that this Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Maxwell: I must ask the Committee to resist this Amendment. The figure of 100 lb. per hour was chosen because that is the level at which the emission of grit and dust begins to be significant. The working party on chimney heights, in 1961–62, recommended that control of chimney heights should operate from this level and the working party on grit and dust, which was set up in 1964 at the request of the Clean Air Council, related its inquiries to furnaces burning from 100 lb. an hour of solid fuel or its equivalent.
The experience of local authorities has been that the cumulative effect of smaller emitters of grit and dust, many of which burn at rates between 100 and 250 lb. per hour, causes more nuisance than large emitters. The time has come in the public interest to control these emissions. Technological advances made since the 1956 Act was passed enable them to be so controlled.
It is not only the fuel itself that causes emission of grit and dust. In many cases fuel is used to heat materials, such as sand, which themselves give rise to grit and dust emission in the course of heating. The Bill includes wide powers of exemption to enable both local authorities and the Minister to take into consideration exceptional cases and to treat them appropriately. I cannot admit that under the circumstances there is any case for setting our sights lower and weakening the Bill by making a general exemption for smaller furnaces, which need to be controlled in the public interest as much as the larger ones.
I made some personal inquiries among horticulturists and I cannot agree with the fear of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain).—I therefore ask him to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Costain: It is not because the Minister said that it was getting near lunch time that I want to speed up this matter, but because there are many other important Bills coming forward. I am not altogether satisfied with the explanation, but I do not see very strong support for me in the Committee. If I decided to press this matter to a Division, I do not think that it would be very effective. So, with reluctance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'dust and fumes' and insert 'and dust'.

No. 13, in page 3, leave out lines 5 to 15.

No. 15, in line 17, leave out from 'above' to end of line 20.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.

HEIGHT OF CHIMNEYS.

Amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 5, line 1, leave out from 'building' to 'unless' in line 5 and insert
'shall not knowingly cause or permit a furnace therein which is served by a new chimney or the capacity of which has been increased since the commencement of this section to be used in the building as mentioned in section 3(1) above as originally enacted'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Allason: It seems that we are to be given no explanation of this Amendment. I start the ball rolling, therefore, and ask for, at least, an explanation of the concluding words,
in section 3(1) above as originally enacted".
Is it intended that Clause 3(1) shall be sacrosanct so that at no time could any Parliament amend it to the extent that it operates on Clause 5?

Mr. Maxwell: I am sure that that cannot be so. Parliament will always be able to amend the Clause.

Mr. Allason: Then what is the purpose of the words, "as originally enacted"? Is it not sufficient to say "as mentioned in section 3(1) above"?

Mr. Maxwell: Perhaps I might ask for a legal or technical explanation here from the Department. I should be most grateful to have it before answering the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacColl: There is a general point on the Amendment which I wish to make, but the answer to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) is that the object here is to make it possible to alter rates under Clause 3(1) without affecting the working of Clause 5. That is the purpose of maintaining the distinction between the two.
In general, the technical advice which I can give the Committee is that this is a good way of exempting from control a


certain number of changes of fuel which it would be fussy to deal with.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 51, in page 5, line 7, leave out 'given' and insert 'granted'.

No. 39, in page 5, line 13, leave out from 'knowingly' to 'unless' in line 15 and insert
'cause or permit a furnace thereof which is served by a new chimney or the capacity of which has been increased since the commencement of this section to be used as mentioned in section 3(1) above as originally enacted'.

No. 52, in page 5, line 18, leave out 'given' and insert 'granted'.

No. 40, in page 5, line 24, leave out 'giving' and insert 'granting'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Amendment No. 41 proposed: In page 5, line 29, leave out from 'authority' to 'unless' in line 31 and insert
'shall not approve the height of a chimney under this section'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

The Deputy Chairman: We shall consider, at the same time, Amendment No. 42, in page 5, line 40, at end insert—
(5) An approval of the height of a chimney by a local authority under this section may be granted without qualification or subject to conditions as to the rate or quality, or the rate and quality, of emissions from the chimney.

Amendment No. 43, in page 6, line 17, leave out 'imposed by the local authority' and insert
'as to the rate or quality, or the rate and quality, of emissions from the chimney, or may cancel any conditions imposed by the local authority or substitute for any conditions so imposed any other conditions which the authority had power to impose'.

Mr. Allason: These Amendments put a mandatory requirement on the local authority as regards approval of the height of chimneys. Previously, it was permissive. When we discussed the question of fuels on Clause 5, the Parliamentary Secretary told us in Committee that it was all right to leave fuels under Clause 5 because it was permissive. It now becomes mandatory. If we accept these Amendments, I should like an assurance from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) that he will accept Amendment 21, now that the ground has been cut from under his feet

by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. MacColl: Amendment No. 41 limits the scope of the conditions which a local authority may apply, so it is a liberalising measure.

Mr. Allason: I agree that it restricts authorities so that they may deal only with the height of a chimney and not with its shape, colour and so on, but the subsection will now become mandatory, so to that extent the objection remains.

Mr. MacColl: This is a carefully agreed formula. I quite understand that the Committee wishes to examine it with care, and I do not suggest otherwise, but the formula has been agreed with the interests concerned on how to balance the need for this control in the hands of local authorities and the need to prevent their using it, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in ways which have nothing to do with chimneys and smoke control.
These Amendments do not interfere with the general discretion of the local authority save in so far as they limit it in the conditions which it may impose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 42, in page 5, line 40, at end insert—
(5) An approval of the height of a chimney by a local authority under this section may be granted without qualification or subject to conditions as to the rate or quality, or the rate and quality, of emissions from the chimney.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Mr. Costain: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 5, line 44, leave out 'eight' and insert 'four'.
We have given the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) a very easy run up to this point because we want to get the Bill through. I am delighted to see sitting beside him his hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie), who has for many years been connected with a well-known firm of consulting engineers. I am sure that he will support me in this Amendment and take the opportunity to whisper into the ear of the hon. Member for Buckingham the reasons why it should be accepted.
The purpose here is to hurry approval along so that local authorities do not hold up the development of industrial


buildings and factories and cause unemployment thereby. The purpose is to secure approval from local authorities in four weeks, not eight. The design of a chimney can affect the whole layout of a building. It can hold up all the plans and the commencement of work, causing unemployment and the loss of export orders.
The Ministry has produced an excellent document entitled "The Height of Chimneys". The hon. Member for Luton will be familiar with it. He must have used it on many occasions. The document consists of four sheets showing tables of figures. The person who must approve the height of the chimney refers to the document, assesses the type of district and assesses the emission in lb.-hours, and then, on the other side of the scale, he sees the correct height of the chimney.

Mr. Maxwell: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends for the progress which they have allowed the Bill to make. I have much sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment, and I am happy to accept it.

Mr. MacColl: I do not want to be the skeleton at the feast—or whatever the appropriate metaphor is—but I must tell the Committee that, although we have consulted the local authority associations, the matter is not finalised. If we heard objections to the Amendment, my noble Friend in another place might think it necessary to ask for the matter to be looked at again. I should not like to be denounced as having got something through by saying that we would accept it and then sabotaging or double-crossing the House in another place. However, subject to that, I agree with what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Costain: I am not clear whether the Parliamentary Secretary supports the Amendment, or is taking the ordinary precautions which one expects from the Department. I shall not know the answer until the Question is put, but I have the clear impression that the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) who is expert in these matters and understands them as well as I do, sees the practical force of my argument here and recognises that, by accepting the Amendment, we could enable work to start sooner and help to bring unemployment down.
As I understand him, the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept the Amendment, but he warns that in another place there might have to be second thoughts. If there are second thoughts, the question will come back to the House and we shall have to debate it again. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination, however, can I see any reason why the Amendment should not be made.
Chimneys such as those of cement works come under the Alkali Act. If a local authority official spends more than ten minutes on this piece of paper, he will be doodling to pass the time. He will then have to visit the site and make a decision. If that cannot be done in four weeks, there is not much hope of Britain making progress.

Mr. W. Howie: I am flattered by the kind way to which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) has referred to me during this short debate. He and my hon. and hungry Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be glad to learn that I shall not lengthen the debate unduly. I learned during the considerable number of years that I spent in the consulting engineering world carefully to study things said by contractors, even by the very eminent and respectable contractors such as the hon. Gentleman, whose reputation in the building world stands very high.
I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) carefully to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and to undertake to discuss the hon. Gentleman's proposals with him with a view to making an Amendment at a later stage, if my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman can reach an agreement under the general guidance of the Minister.

Mr. Maxwell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie). I propose to accept the Amendment, because initially I asked for 30 days for the very reasons mentioned by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). The Ministry asked for eight weeks, because local authorities are very busy in meeting the many demands made upon them. Four weeks could impose a tight schedule. However, these matters are so important


for industry that I thought that an exception should be made and that 30 days would be sufficient. Therefore, subject only to what my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said about any problems of an important nature arising making it necessary for me to come back and ask for six weeks—in other words, I do not want to be called a dirty dog for changing my mind—I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 43, in page 6, line 17, leave out 'imposed by the local authority' and insert:
'as to the rate or quality, or the rate and quality, of emissions from the chimney, or may cancel any conditions imposed by the local authority or substitute for any conditions so imposed any other conditions which the authority had power to impose'.

No. 44, in page 6, leave out lines 34 to 45.

No. 45, in page 7, line 2, leave out from 'or' to 'before' in line 3 and insert:
'the plans for which were passed'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 7, line 11, at end add:
'as respects any chimney serving a furnace'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Mr. Allason: This is a thoroughly sloppy Amendment. The original intention was that Section 10 of the 1956 Act should be deleted. The hon. Gentleman then found that it was needed in certain cases, so he seeks to retain it, but to add some words to Clause 5(11) to secure that Section 10
shall cease to have effect as respects any chimney serving a furnace".
How is anyone in future to tell what the 1956 Act means? Will there be a scribble down the side of the Act, saying, "Subsection 4 shall not take effect as regards any chimney serving as a furnace"? It would be simpler to make a proper Amendment to the Act.
Section 10(4) reads:
This section shall not apply to the erection or extension of a generating station as defined in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, other than a private generating station as so defined.
It would be simple to add, "or to any chimney serving as a furnace". That would make sense. I appreciate that an

Amendment to that effect has not been tabled, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to take appropriate steps in another place.

Mr. Maxwell: I am advised that the position as it stands is adequate, but I will carefully consider whether what the hon. Gentleman has suggested would improve the situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.

POWER OF APPROPRIATE MINISTER TO REQUIRE CREATION OF SMOKE CONTROL AREAS.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Costain: I am advised that the Coal Merchants' Federation is worried about the powers contained in this Clause. The Federation thinks that, as drafted, the Bill would enable the Minister to require any local authority in any part of the country to undertake a programme of smoke control. If it failed to do so voluntarily, this power could be used, though it is unlikely to be so used, to force authorities in whose area there was no real pollution problem to undertake a programme of smoke control.
Because this might well complicate the supply of smokeless fuels in areas where they were more urgently required, the Federation has asked me to press the sponsors of the Bill for some assurance that the powers would be used only in extreme cases where an authority resolutely refused to take action in a case where there was a definite pollution problem.

Mr. Maxwell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. As far as I am aware, that is the intention. I wounder whether my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has anything to add. If he has not, I am certain that a careful note will be taken of this point raised by the Federation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.

RELATION OF CLEAN AIR ACTS TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, ALKALI ACT.

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 10, line 21, leave out 'dust and fumes' and insert 'and dust'.

No. 23, in page 10, leave out lines 25 to 37.

No. 24, in line 41, leave out 'to (3)' and insert 'and (2)'.

No. 25, in line 43, after 'excluded', insert—
(a) in any proceedings brought by virtue of section 1 or 11(2) of the principal Act (dark smoke, and smoke control orders) or section 1 of this Act in respect of the emission of smoke from the work or, as the case may be, the specified part thereof it shall be a defence to prove that the best practicable means had been employed to prevent or minimise the alleged emission; and
(b)

No. 26, in page 11, line 36, leave out 'to (3)' and insert 'and (2)'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.

REGULATIONS.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 12, line 8, after '4(2)', insert 'or subsection (3) of section (Application to fumes of certain provisions as to grit and dust)'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.

INTERPRETATION.

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 12, line 28, at end insert—
(2) In this Act any reference to the rate of emission of any substance or any reference which is to be understood as such a reference shall, in relation to any regulations or conditions, be construed as a reference to the quantities of that substance which may be emitted during a period specified in the regulations or conditions.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1.

APPLICATION TO FUMES OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS AS TO GRIT AND DUST.

(1) The Minister may by regulation—

(a) apply all or any of the provisions of sections 2 and 3 and section (Exemptions from requirement to fit arrestment plant) of this Act and of sections 18(2), 19(3), 20(4) and 22(1) of the principal Act (provisions relating to grit and dust) to fumes as they apply to grit and dust; and
(b)apply all or any of the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (requirement that new furnaces shall be so far as practicable smokeless) to fumes as they apply to smoke;

subject, in either case, to such exceptions and modifications as the Minister thinks expedient.

(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases.

(3) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by each House of Parliament.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2.

EXEMPTIONS FROM REQUIREMENT TO FIT ARRESTMENT PLANT.

(1) The Minister may by regulations provide that furnaces of any prescribed class shall while used for a prescribed purpose be exempted from the operation of section 3(1) above.

(2) If on the application of the occupier of a building a local authority are satisfied that the emission of grit and dust from any chimney serving a furnace in the building will not be prejudicial to health or a nuisance if the furnace is used for a particular purpose without compliance with section 3(1) above, they may exempt the furnace from the operation of that subsection while used for that purpose.

(3) An application for exemption under subsection (2) above shall be made to the local authority in the prescribed form and shall be accompanied by the prescribed particulars, but the foregoing provision shall not preclude a local authority from granting an exemption under that subsection on an application in writing which does not comply with the foregoing provision if the information provided by the applicant is sufficient to enable the authority to determine the application

(4) If a local authority to whom an application is duly made for an exemption under subsection (2) above fail to determine the application and to give a written notice of their decision to the applicant within eight weeks of receiving the application or such longer period as may be agreed in writing between the applicant and the authority, the furnace shall be treated as having been granted an exemption from the operation of section 3(1) above while used for the purpose specified in the application.

(5) If a local authority decide not to grant an exemption under subsection (2) above, they shall give the applicant a written notification of their decision stating their reasons, and the applicant may within twenty-eight days of receiving the notification appeal against the decision to the appropriate Minister.

(6) On an appeal under this section the appropriate Minister may confirm the decision appealed against, or may grant the exemption applied for or may vary the purpose for which the furnace to which the application relates may be used without compliance with section 3(1) above, and shall give the appellant a written notification of any decision of the Minister on an appeal under this section, stating his reasons for the decision.

(7) If on any day a furnace which is exempt from the operation of section 3(1) above is used for a purpose other than a prescribed purpose or, as the case may be, a purpose for which the furnace may be used by virtue of subsection (2), (4) or (6) above, the occupier of the building shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1.

ADAPTATION AND MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF PRINCIPAL ACT.

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 14, line 12, after '4', insert:
'and section (Exemptions from requirement to fit arrestment plant)'.

No. 48, in page 14, line 16, leave out 'section 2' and insert
'sections 2, 3 and section (Exemptions from requirement to fit arrestment plant)'.

No. 31, in page 14, line 24, leave out paragraph 6.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Mr. Maxwell: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 15, line 9, leave out "dust"', and insert '"emitted"'.

Mr. Allason: I have amended my copy of the 1956 Act in accordance with

the Amendment and the result reads as follows:
'chimney' includes structures and openings of any kind from or through which smoke, smoke, grit, dust or fumes may be emitted and, in particular, includes flues emitted.…
This is a complete nonsense. The Amendment is wrongly drafted, and I suggest that it would be better if the correct Amendment were made in another place.

Mr. Maxwell: The purpose of the Amendment is to correct a drafting error in paragraph 10 of the Schedule. The paragraph is intended to amend the definition of "chimney" in Section 34(1) of the Clean Air Act, 1956 in two aspects—first by adding "fumes" to "smoke, grit or dust", so that a structure or opening through which fumes may be emitted comes within the definition, and, second, by defining "chimney" as including "flues". By inadvertence, the words to be removed from Section 34(1) were wrongly described, with the result that in the Section as amended the words "may be emitted" would appear twice. The Amendment seeks to remove these words from Section 34(1).

Mr. Costain: Would the hon. Gentleman read out the Section now as he thinks it will read with his Amendment?

Mr. Maxwell: It would take me some time to redraft, and I shall give very careful consideration to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) that this might be amended in another place. Since there is other legislation to be dealt with, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will permit the Amendment to stand.

Mr. MacColl: We have checked it, and we think that this is right. We may be wrong, because we missed this originally. The C.B.I. pointed it out to us very courteously. We think that it is now right, but if it is not we shall alter it.

Mr. Allason: My point has been taken that if we leave out from "smoke" to "emitted", "smoke" remains in and "emitted" remains in. The intention is to exclude both but the result is that we get "smoke, smoke" "emitted, emitted" both occurring.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 34, in page 15, line 18, after '5' insert
'and section (Exemption from requirement to fit arrestment plan)'.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2.

PROVISIONS OF PRINCIPAL ACT REPEALED.

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 15, line 35, at end insert 'as respects any chimney serving a furnace'.—[Mr. Maxwell.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

FREEDOM OF PUBLICATION PROTECTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is based on a Report over which a great deal of trouble was taken. I hope that the House will forgive me if I briefly give the background in order that the Bill's purposes may be intelligible.
Both the present Government and the previous Conservative Government found themselves in serious trouble with the Press at different times. The Bill is in no sense controversial. As a Conservative backbencher I thought it very unfortunate that the Conservative Government of 1962 should have become so much at cross-purposes with the Press in the case that obtained notoriety under the name of the Vassall case. It may be that many hon. Members opposite have had the same feeling about the more recent case in which their Govern-

ment was involved in connection with D notices.
The Bill has its origin as a remoter consequence of the Vassall case. Feeling among journalists as to what happened in that case were very strongly aroused, so much so that it seemed right to a number of people concerned with the Press and the present state of the law that the whole question of the law of the Press in this country should be gone into. The initiative was taken by a society called "Justice", the British section of the International Commission of Jurists. The chairman of its council is the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, and its vice-chairmen are my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) and the noble Lord, Lord Tangley. I need hardly say that it is a completely non-political body. Members of Parliament from all parties in the House are represented on it.
The working party which considered the matter was made up partly of representatives of "Justice" and partly of representatives of the Press, actually coming from the British Committee of the International Press Institute. The chairman of the working party was Lord Shawcross.
The working party decided at a fairly early moment in its investigations that, whatever might be the feelings of journalists arising out of what happened in the Vassall case, it did not think that the law had in any way been unjustly used against the journalists. Nor did it think that on the specific matter at issue—the revelation of disclosures—amendment of the law was called for. But the more it examined the state of the law as it affected the Press the more it thought that an investigation was called for.
Therefore, it went to considerable trouble to look at the present state of the law in connection with the Press under three heads which are reproduced in my Bill: first, contempt of court; secondly, official secrets, and, thirdly, libel and slander. It made a considerable number of recommendations under each of those heads, and the Bill is founded directly on those recommendations.
The Bill does not go the full length of the recommendations, nor does it include some which were particularly controversial. I have done this deliberately


because I feel that it is in the interests of the House and, I hope, of all parties in it that some initiative in this field should be taken by the Legislature. While the Bill may be only a beginning, I believe it is important that there should be a beginning, and I also believe that it should not be defeated merely because one attempts to go too far in front of public opinion.
We have not had what might be called a full-dress discussion in this House on this broad topic, but in another place there was a debate specifically on this Report. It is now a printed Report, and I recommend it to the attention of hon. Members who may be interested in the subject. It is entitled, "The Law and the Press". I also recommend to hon. Members the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate dated 25th May, 1966. I pay tribute to Lord Tangley, who initiated the debate in another place and has at all stages taken a great deal of trouble to bring the issues before Parliament and public opinion.
As I have mentioned one name I think it incumbent upon me to mention some other names. It is unfortunate that on a day like this I should have to mention what may be called an emotive name, but I do not think that I can discuss the matter without mentioning Mr. Cecil King, who for many years has been campaigning on this front, not from any political or controversial aspect, but merely because he is genuinely of the view that the present state of the law is having a harmful effect on the Press in the sense of being unduly restrictive of what can be reported. Mr. King has delivered a number of addresses, many of which are now printed, and I recommend those to the study of any persons who are interested in this subject.
There are other persons who have taken a leading part in this matter. I would mention this year's President of the Institute of Editors, Mr. Clement Jones, who has taken a personal interest. I think that it is necessary, in particular, to mention the name of Lord Devlin, to whom the Press is probably far more indebted in this field than to any other person. Lord Devlin is now Chairman of the Press Council. I think that everybody who has studied the subject would agree that the Press Council has done invaluable work for the journalists' profession, and Lord

Devlin has taken an extremely personal interest in the matter and made a remarkable contribution. I believe that he has transformed the general atmosphere and relations and the feeling of those who work in the journalists' profession.
Finally, I pay tribute to Lord Shawcross, who has been a most doughty campaigner in this cause. Later in my speech I shall wish to quote from him. I ought also to pay tribute to the actual members of the working party, who did all the work on which the Bill was originally based.
The people of this country are said to be—I believe it is true—the greatest newspaper readers, or, at any rate, buyers, of any country in the world. Yet one gets the constant feeling that one of the most ingrained national habits of our citizens is to blame the Press on every possible occasion. Whenever one talks to people about the Press one constantly hears, "Is it not awful what things they put in the papers nowadays?" One notices that sometimes that expression is uttered after the avid reading of a number of pages devoted to sex, crime or graft. Often when that remark is made it is followed by "What are things coming to? What will they do next?" I do not think that the implication is right that the Press in this country is necessarily worse these days than it was in other days.
In the debate in another place the Earl of Dundee gave an interesting quotation showing what the Press of this country was like in other times. This is a quotation from The Times of 26th June, 1830 It is an obituary notice on the death of His Majesty King George IV. It was in these terms:
The late King, before his 20th year, was supposed to have been initiated in all the vices by which an advanced and affluent and corrupt society is infested. He led a course of life the character of which rose little higher than that of animal indulgence. Not one but a series of licentious favourites are understood to have presided over the Royal Household of King George IV.
I feel that that is probably as good as any of today's Press could achieve.
Surely what our people ought to be saying though they never do, is not "What awful things they put in the Press!" but, "What are the things which do not get in the Press?" People have got it wrong. The real complaint should be "Why do we not have more things reported in the Press?" Anybody who


follows these things sees that they turn up almost every day in articles, speeches, and so on.
I quote a statement by the editor of the New Statesman in a recent article referring to the effect of the present libel law:
As an editor, I am sometimes obliged to suppress what I believe to be the truth through fear of an action for libel. I may know that sufficient evidence to justify an assertion in court is obtainable—but to get it will entail a diversion of the resources of my paper out of all proportion to the importance of the story. Or, I may feel that a writ will follow in any case, and that the subsequent litigation will not only be expensive but immensely time-consuming for me and my staff. And even if we win we may not be able to recover our costs.
Another article by Mr. Colin Frame, in the Evening News, was about the Official Secrets Act. He said:
Mention it to me, and I now think of a colleague who was threatened with the Official Secrets Act this week.
The colleague was a lady. He went on:
She was reasonably, and in the public interest as a journalist, trying to find out what use the Ministry of Defence made of land at Kidbrooke which the Greater London Council want for a big housing scheme.
That is a further example of the way in which the Press is inhibited from publishing matters of public interest.
This is a modest Bill and has the objective of making it easier for the Press to publish, without injury to private rights and without damage to national security, matters of private concern that are of interest to the public and matters of public concern whose publication would not imperil the security of the State.
I would not like it to be thought that the Bill is designed recklessly to throw open private secrets and matters of public security to a reckless, irresponsible Press. There are matters which must be preserved from being reported—for instance, matters of concern to us here, such as meetings of the 1922 Committee and the Parliamentary Labour Party. Parallel with legislation of the type that I am introducing today—and I ask the indulgence of the House because this is not in the Bill, but is essentially relevant—should be legislation to preserve the rights of privacy of individuals in strictly limited fields and from the increasingly threatened mechanical devices of the

technological age. In another place, there was an attempt to introduce a Bill on those lines by Lord Mancroft in 1961. I have a suspicion that an attempt may be made in this House, possibly by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) or by the Government. I would be the first to confess that this Bill does not go far enough. I would like to do much more.
We need a completely new Press code with penal provisions geared not to what the Press says but to what it omits. Heavy fines should be provided for failure by the Press to report in due time major matters of news value which, on investigation, could have been ferreted out by reporters. The same principle—put for—Ward in the discussion on Lord Mancroft's Bill—should be extended into the social sphere to apply to newspapers which report the hats and dresses of fashionable ladies at Ascot but fail to report the hat or dress of a particular lady. A social climber whose name is not included in guest lists at important parties should also be able to sue for damages—the damages to be measured by the importance of the party and by the distance which the unreported guest still has to climb. Obviously, the Press would need some protection. Members of this House, for instance, bringing an action because their speeches were not reported would have to prove positively that those speeches were newsworthy. But that is a detail.
I sometimes feel that the second half of this century will be called the "Age of the Hand-out". This is surely the most insidiously corrupting influence in the present development of the Press and in relations between the public and the Government. We all do it. We hand out those parts of our speeches which we want reported in our constituencies and elsewhere, and the practice makes life infinitely easier for the journalists. Not only we do it. Public bodies, including Government Departments, local authorities and trade unions and all sorts of other organisations, do it and always it is easier for the Press. What else is a White Paper but a hand-out? What else is a local council agenda, with its committee reports setting out all the things they have decided to do, but a handout? All this looks rather unsatisfactory in the light of the test that was


applied to these things by that master of modern journalism, Lord Northcliffe, when he said:
News is what people do not want you to print. All the rest is advertising.
Only too often the real news is the news which people do not want printed. The parts of speeches which are not in the hand-outs are probably those which should be reported. The things which do not appear in White Papers or in local council agendas are often the things which ought to be investigated and published. On investigation, what may seem on the surface activity by these organisations might be found to be not so much activity but inertia.
While we have not debated in this House a Bill of this kind, we have debate recently the state of the Press in general. The House, particularly hon. Members opposite, has been understand- ably perturbed by the closures and amalgamations and the threat of monopoly which the Press is facing. But I do not think that anyone has managed to suggest a solution. However, I think there has been general agreement that the Press must remain independent and that the basis of that independence must be in-dependence of Government support or subsidy. That is to say, there must be the capacity of a newspaper to make a profit.
I quoted Lord Northcliffe earlier. His view was that most of what was in the news columns was apt to be advertising. But there is a converse proposition—that the most reliable news one sees in the newspapers is what one reads in the advertising pages. It was a significant and not very encouraging feature in a leading London newspaper about 10 days ago when another national newspaper took a large advertisement offering greatly reduced scales of charges for display advertising in its own pages. This is just the sort of thing we should take note of. It reflects the fact that the business of making profits which one used to take for granted as being so easy for the Press to make is getting harder.
If independence should go and the number of newspapers gets smaller, the reaction is felt immediately by all those—reporters, editors, managerial staff and printers—who live by the trade of journalism. What we face is the fact that newspapers sell by virtue of what they print. What I am saying by this Bill is that the right to print must, in the conditions the Press now faces, be pushed to the furthest limit consistent with the preservation of individual privacy and public security. That, fundamentally, is what Parts I and III of the Bill are about.
Part I concerns contempt of court and Part III the law of libel. The Clauses covering these are matters of detail reforming the present law, but the objective is not only to amend the present law. It is also to widen the rights of newspapers to report and print, thus making them more interesting, more attractive and, therefore, more likely to sell.
Before leaving this aspect I should say that it is probably true that the critical prospects I have mentioned are more relevant to the national Press than to the local Press. One of the few encouraging things in the situation is that, broadly speaking, as far as I know, the provincial Press is keeping its end up particularly well.
I may be particularly fortunate, because in my area I have an excellent local Press, six or eight local newspapers, all different and with their own styles, but all going from strength to strength. Although I must not mention names, I consider that one of them, in its coverage of local and national news and the spread and detail of its advertising, is as good as any in the country, if not any in the world. Moreover—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, adjourned at twenty-four minutes past Two o'clock till Monday next.